[Standards] 2017-11-29 XMPP Council Meeting Minutes

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Dec 7 08:14:48 UTC 2017


On 7 Dec 2017, at 08:03, Jonas Wielicki <jonas at wielicki.name> wrote:
> 
> On Mittwoch, 6. Dezember 2017 17:03:16 CET Kevin Smith wrote:
>>> On 6 Dec 2017, at 16:39, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017, at 10:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
>>>> The motivation in xep1 is that the outgoing Council members might have
>>>> not given public feedback, due to being on Council, but that they could
>>>> have feedback that should be taken into account. For the sake of two
>>>> weeks, I’m not sure it’s worth shortcutting giving that opportunity here.
>>> 
>>> I don't think the two weeks matters necessarily but everyone on the
>>> council now was previously a member and could have given feedback. If
>>> they didn't then, I don't see why being on the council would make a
>>> difference.
>> 
>> It’s the opposite case that xep1 is concerned with. A Council member might
>> decide not to give feedback on standards@, knowing that they can give such
>> feedback when voting, and such when they’re not on Council their
>> not-yet-voiced comments might fail to be heard.
> 
> FWIW, in a first and second iteration of thought, I think we should try to 
> change the relevant passage of XEP-0001.
> 
> It encourages council members (and to say this to begin with: I doubt that 
> anyone from current or previous council actually did that, at least not with 
> malicious intent) to delay their feedback until the voting process, at which 
> point the community has no way to reasonably address that feedback (be it 
> negative or positive) with remarks which may have been overlooked and taken 
> for granted (thus not mentioned) by others.
> 
> This could invoke a feeling of "not being heard" in the community, which I 
> think could be very detrimental.
> 
> So encouraging that behaviour by means of XEP-0001, I think we should not.
> 
> Looking forward to the third iteration of thought :-) (i.e. what you think).

I think not re-issuing LC actually has the opposite effect, and reduces public feedback.

Take this case, for instance. I am newly on Council, so I didn’t review this XEP thoroughly as part of the LC, now I have reviewed it more thorougly and I have feedback, so there are two possible outcomes:

1) The LC is reissued and I send out my Council feedback publicly in response to the LC. There’s a clear path to addressing feedback.
2) The LC isn’t reissued, it goes straight to vote and I just -1 in the Council meeting.

There’s the additional risk that if the LC isn’t reissued that new Council members feel pressured to just +1 and not do their jobs reviewing XEPs that came up before the previous Council because of a sense of completing previous Council’s work. I’d have thought avoiding the potential for Council to feel pressured to not do their job is worth keeping this text in xep1 for.

/K 


More information about the Standards mailing list